Industrial Law Reports

2004

486

[2004] 2 ILR

PENANG PARKROYAL HOTEL

v.
NORZAIDI SABRI

INDUSTRIAL COURT, PULAU PINANG

SYED AHMAD RADZI SYED OMAR
AWARD NO. 525 OF 2004 [CASE NO: 7(9)/4-987/00]
12 MAY 2004
DISMISSAL: Absenteeism - Absent without leave or reasonable excuse
- Whether duty of employer to take reasonable steps to inquire into
background facts causing employees absence - Whether claimant was
absent - Whether absence was without prior leave of company - Whether
absence was without reasonable excuse - Whether claimant failed to
inform company of absence - Claimants record of service showing no
tendency to be habitual absentee - Whether ought to be taken into account
- Whether just dismissal
DOMESTIC INQUIRY: Procedural impropriety - Rules of natural justice
and basic fundamental human rights - Claimant not allowed to see, hear
and cross-examine witnesses - Claimant not given full opportunity to
defend himself - Whether fatal to companys case
The claimant, a supervisor in the food and beverage department of the company,
was dismissed from services for being absent continuously for a period of
several days. The company submitted that following the claimants absence, a
show cause letter was issued to the claimant that was ensued by a domestic
inquiry where the claimant was found guilty of the charge: (i) of being absent
from work without prior leave or any reasonable excuse; and (ii) for failing
to inform or attempting to inform the company of the absence.
The claimant admitted that he was absent from work. He however explained
that during the time of his absence, he was suffering from an illness and sought
medical aid from a bomoh (hereinafter traditional healer). He attributed his
failure to inform the company of his absence was because of his inability to
move due to the illness. Thereafter, the claimant had attempted to notify the
company of his need to obtain emergency leave through his wife and sister.

Held [for the claimant]:

[1] Following CK Lee & Associates v. Goh Shaw Yuh, it is a reciprocal

duty of an employer to take reasonable steps to investigate and inquire
into the background facts causing the employees absence, as much
as it is the duty of the employee to take reasonable steps to inform
the employer of the situation giving rise to the absence. (p. 493 g)

[2004] 2 ILR

Penang Parkroyal Hotel v. Norzaidi Sabri

Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar

487

[2] The burden of prove was on the company to prove four ingredients
as derived from the charge; i.e. (i) that the claimant was absent for
the said period; (ii) the absence was without prior leave of the
company; (iii) the absence was without reasonable excuse; and (iv)
that the claimant had failed to inform the company of his absence.
(p. 494 f-h)
[2a] It was beyond dispute that the claimant was absent for a certain
period. However, for the first ingredient, the company had included
the claimants off-days of four days in the claimants alleged period
of absence. Further the show cause letter was also not consistent with
the charge. Thus, there were some irregularities to the first ingredient.
(p. 494 h-i)
[2b] For the second ingredient, it was satisfactorily shown that no approval
was obtained by the claimant prior to his absence. Only the claimants
wife called the office to inform of the claimants illness. (p. 495 a-b)
[2c] For the third ingredient, it was clear that the claimants health problem
started during the time of his absence. This was apparent since the
claimant had applied for advance salary for his treatment. The claimant
also made a leave application during the time of his illness but was
rejected by the company. Furthermore, the claimant had met with a
companys witness and the companys former human resources
manager and explained that the sickness could not be cured by western
medicine. In view of these facts, the claimant had a good reason for
his absence. (p. 495 c-g)
[2d] The fourth ingredient was not proved by the company. From the
evidence, the company was aware of the claimants health condition.
The claimants wife and sister had called the company to inform of
the claimants illness. Although the traditional healer was not able to
provide any medical certificate proving the claimants illness, however,
he still came to court to testify as to his condition. That was good
enough evidence to substantiate the claimants sickness. (p. 495 h-i)
[3] The claimants previous record was taken into account to show that
he not only did not have a tendency to be a habitual absentee, but
was given a certificate of full attendance in the previous year. The
claimant, admittedly by the company, had an unblemished record of
service. (p. 496 c)
[4] The domestic inquiry held was not properly conducted. The claimant
was not allowed to see, hear and cross-examine witnesses. The
claimant was also not given full opportunity to defend himself.

488

Industrial Law Reports

2004

[2004] 2 ILR

However, despite the irregularities of the domestic inquiry, the case

was not fatal. The Industrial Court is the proper forum to adjust on
the issue whether the claimants dismissal was with just cause or
excuse. (p. 496 f-g)
[5] The company had not proved its case on a balance of probabilities.
What it should have done was to visit the claimant to determine his
condition and to give him moral support. The dismissal was therefore
without just cause or excuse. (p. 497 b-d)
[Unjust dismissal. Reinstatement not ordered. Backwages and
compensation in lieu of reinstatement awarded to claimant subject to 20%
deduction for post dismissal earnings.]
Award(s) referred to:
CK Lee & Associates v. Goh Shaw Yuh [2002] 3 ILR 645 (Award No. 688 of 2002)
Langkasuka Resort v. Mariappan Arumokan [2002] 3 ILR 1048 (Award No. 820 of 2002)

Case(s) referred to:

Dr. James Alfred, Sabah v. Koperasi Serbaguna Sanyo, Sabah and Anor [2001]
3 CLJ 541
Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Bhd [1981] 2 MLJ 129
Lvnock v. Cereal Packaging Ltd (1988) 510, [1988] ICR 670
Milan Auto Sdn Bhd v. Wong Seh Yen [1995] 4 CLJ 449
Wong Yuen Hock v. Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd & Anor Appeal [1995]
3 CLJ 344
For the claimant - Pravin Kaur Jessy; M/s Navinder Kaur Jessy
For the company - S Sankar; M/s R Sivagnanan & Assocs

AWARD
(NO. 525 OF 2004)
The dispute here is as a result of the dismissal of Norzaidi Sabri (the claimant)
By Penang Parkroyal Hotel (the company).
g

Facts of The Case

The company dismissed the claimant for being absent continuously for a period
from 6 March 1999 to 7 March 1999 and 15 March 1999 to 27 March 1999
without prior leave or reasonable excuse. The claimant had also failed to inform
or attempt to inform the company of his absence. Following the claimants
absence a show cause letter was issued to the claimant. A Domestic Inquiry
was convened on 9 April 1999. Two charges were preferred against the
claimant. The Inquiry Panel found the claimant guilty of the second charge.
The claimants excuse for his absence was due to his illness. The claimant
suffered serious illness during the period of his absence. The claimant tried

[2004] 2 ILR

Penang Parkroyal Hotel v. Norzaidi Sabri

Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar

489

taking medication from a few doctors but without success, as the pain in his
body was still severe. The claimant then changed to traditional medicine which
saw some improvement to his sickness. During the period of the claimant
undergoing traditional medication he could not get sick leave as the traditional
healer is not a medical doctor. During that period the claimant applied for
emergency leave and called the company to inform of his condition. The
claimant averred that he did not absent himself without reason or without
informing the company of his sickness.

The Evidence/Submissions
The Companys case
The company dismissed the claimant after due inquiry. A Notice of Inquiry
had been issued to the claimant and requested the claimant to answer to 2
charges set out therein, inter alia:
1. That you have obtained excessive medical leave from various clinics for a
total of 22 days from January 1999 until 31 March 1999. Out of the 22
medical certificates submitted by you, 21 medical certificates were from non
panel clinics and only 1 was from our panel clinic. These excessive medical
leave indicates that you are medically unfit to discharge your duties
adequately.
2. You have continuously been absent from work from 6 March 1999 to
7 March 1999, 15 March 1999 to 27 March 1999 without prior leave or any
reasonable excuse. You have failed to inform or attempt to inform your
employer of your absence. You have therefore, breached your contract of
employment by such a major misconduct.

The Domestic Inquiry was duly convened on 9 April 1999.

The claimant as a supervisor in the food and beverage department of the hotel
was vested with the responsibility of assisting the restaurant manager in
ensuring the smooth running of the outlet and efficient delivery of service and
to supervise the team and maintain discipline, safety, attendance and grooming
standard, resolving staff grievances as well as identifying the requirements and
conduct formal training and on the job training to the staff and to provide them
with guidance and appraisal on their performance.

He therefore carries a higher level of responsibility as it is a function which

has to be regularly attended to and which requires its incumbent to be diligently
effective in its performance particularly where it is an area which deals directly
with guests of the hotel. This is material factor to be considered in this case
in terms of judging the claimants conduct.
The claimant was absent from work in March 1999 for a continuous period
of time from 15 March 1999 to 27 March 1999.

490

Industrial Law Reports

2004

[2004] 2 ILR

Hence the evidence will show that the claimant had failed in his duties in
material respects due to his prolonged absence without reasonable excuse, from
the employment of the hotel.
The circumstances had left the Hotel with no alternative other than to dismiss
the claimant for his serious misconduct after due inquiry and after the claimant
had every opportunity to explain himself through a show cause exercise.
The evidence will demonstrate that the claimant does not really have a bona
fide explanation for a defence of this allegation and the explanation he had
advanced is void of any documentary proof that the claimant was indeed
suffering from an illness (if any) and that the claimant had indeed obtained
traditional treatment (if any) as a cure to his illness during the period of his
absence.
A reasonable standard of proof must be adopted, whereby due consideration
and weightage must be given to the fact that in practical and realistic terms,
the onus is on the claimant to proof that he was indeed suffering from an
illness (if any) and that the claimant had indeed obtained traditional treatment
(if any) as a cure to his illness during the period of his absence.
The claimant admitted that he was absent from work in March 1999 for a
continuous period of time from 15 March 1999 to 27 March 1999.
The claimant contended that from 15 March 1999 to 27 March 1999 he was
suffering from an illness (traditional) and had sought medical aid from a Bomoh.
The claimant did not go on further to explain and elaborate the nature of his
illness which has even mystified doctors. He referred to his illness as sakit
tradisional. Clearly the explanation advanced lacks even the most modest
expectations in terms of particulars.
The claimant did not produce any documentary evidence to prove that he was
indeed suffering from an illness. In addition the claimant did not produce the
Bomoh as his witness to prove that he had undergone traditional treatment to
cure the said illness let alone to explain the nature of his illness.
COW3 testified that the claimants wife called the hotel on 20 March 1999
and informed him that the claimant will be on medical leave.

The claimant testified that his sister (CLW2) called the hotel on 20 March 1999
and 29 March 1999 to inform the hotel through COW3 of the claimants need
to obtain emergency leave. The claimants sister even wrote a letter dated
2 April 1999 to Jimmy Lee (Human Resources Manager) explaining the same.
The said letter is exhibited in COB at p. 31.

COW3 testified that he did not receive any call from the claimant either from
the claimants sister or wife on 29 March 1999.

[2004] 2 ILR

Penang Parkroyal Hotel v. Norzaidi Sabri

Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar

491

The claimant at the domestic inquiry only stated that his illness is something
he referred to as Penyakit Dalaman. However during the proceedings herein
he purported to elaborate further by saying the following:
Penyakit tidak khusus kepada mana-mana bahagian. la menangkap dari atas bahu,
belakang ke bawah pinggang. Akibatnya badan terganggu, rasa lemah, tidak
upaya bergerak, berdiri dan kadang-kala tekanan dalaman, rasa dicucuk ke semua
anggota badan saya. Akibatnya saya lemah sangat, emosi saya terganggu.

This explanation was vague and unclear and does little to explain away the
misconduct of absence.
The claimant in his testimony attributes his failure to inform the hotel of his
absence because he was unable to move. Therefore the claimant had attempted
to notify the hotel of his need to obtain emergency leave through his wife or
his sister.
The claimants sister, Norlaili Sabri (CLW2) testified that she had called the
hotel twice during the period between 15 March 1999 to 19 March 1999 and
20 March 1999 to 27 March 1999 to notify the hotel vide Raj (COW3) of
the claimants need to obtain emergency leave.
Further during cross examination she revealed that for the period between
15 March 1999 to 19 March 1999 the call was made on 20 March 1999.
Then for the period between 20 March 1999 to 27 March 1999 the call was
made on 29 March 1999.
In addition CLW2 during re-examination testified that the call made on
20 March 1999 was to cover the leave on 15, 16, 19 and 20 March 1999
only and not the subsequent days. Therefore it is submitted that the first call
was made after the claimant had been away from work for approximately
three days and the second call was made after the claimant had been away
from work for approximately five days. Quite apart from the information is
the question of justification.
CLW2 had also testified that the relevant calls were made to Raj (COW3)
from Coffee House Taman Terrace and informed him that the claimant had
severe back pain and was unable to get out of bed and asked him to inform
the claimants boss that he is on emergency leave until he gets better. It is
strange that there is no medical report to substantiate this. Even if he preferred
traditional medicine he could still get a confirmation from the hotels panel to
verify the fact that he was in such condition.
Meanwhile COW3 in his testimony contended that the claimants wife called
the hotel on 20 March 1999 and informed him that the claimant will be on
medical leave. Furthermore he testified that he did not receive any call from
either the claimants sister or wife on 29 March 1999.

492

Industrial Law Reports

2004

[2004] 2 ILR

The claimant during the course of these proceedings had also produced Basirun
Abdullah (Bomoh) (CLW3 who had carried out the traditional treatment on
the claimant. Basirun referred the claimants illness as Penyakit Benda
Halus). He did not corroborate the claimants description of the nature of
his physical condition. However he could not offer this Honourable Court any
documentary proof of the nature of the claimants illness as well as the fact
that he had carried out the traditional treatment on the claimant save for his
own words. Furthermore he could not even furnish details concerning the
relevant dates in which the traditional treatment took place.
The Claimants Case
The claimant testified that his absence between the period of 6 March 1999
to 7 March 1999 and 15 March 1999 to 27 March 1999 were known to the
company. The company had also condoned the issue at the time of the show
cause letter dated 25 March 1999. The claimant also averred that that as
between the stated dates 17th, 18th, 24th and 25th were his off-days. The
claimant further testified that he had informed the company of his absence
through his sister and wife. The claimant had written to the company in
October 1999 requesting for advance salary to go for traditional treatment of
his illness. The company advanced the sum of RM500 to the claimant for that
purpose. The claimant further testified that in the month of December 1998
he applied for three months leave to undergo medical treatment of his illness.
The claimants application was refused but the claimant appealed and the
company approved from 4 January 1999 to 31 January 1999.
CLW2, the claimants sister, testified that she called COW3 on two occasions
and informed him that the claimant required to take emergency leave. She
also informed COW3 that the claimant was very sick and unable to get up.
She further wrote a letter at Co. p. 31 dated 2 April 1999 to inform the
company that she had informed the company of the claimants emergency
leave.

CLW3 informed the court that he had used traditional method to treat the
claimant of his sickness. He could not remember the dates but confirmed it
was in the month of March 1999. He used traditional massage and traditional
medication in treating the claimant. The claimants condition at the time was
very bad as he was only lying in bed.

The Law
In the case of Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Bhd [1981] 2 MLJ
129 Raja Azlan Shah CJ (as he then was) observed the following at
p. 42:

...Where representations are made and are referred to the Industrial Court for
enquiry, it is the duty of that court to determine whether the termination or

[2004] 2 ILR

Penang Parkroyal Hotel v. Norzaidi Sabri

Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar

493

dismissal is with or without just cause or excuse. If the employer chooses to

give a reason for the action taken by him, the duty of the Industrial Court will
be to enquire whether that excuse or reason has or has not been made out. If it
finds as a fact that it has not been proved then the inevitable conclusion must
be that the termination or dismissal was without just cause and excuse. The
proper enquiry of the court is the reason advanced by it and that court or the
High Court cannot go into another reason not relied on by the employer or find
one for it.

Wong Yuen Hock v. Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd & Anor
Appeal [1995] 3 CLJ 344 the Federal Court stated at p. 352 that:
On the authorities, we were of the view that the main and only function of the
Industrial Court in dealing with a reference under s. 20 of the Act (unless
otherwise lawfully provided by the terms of the reference), is to determine
whether the misconduct or irregularities complained of by management as the
grounds of dismissal were in fact committed by the workman, and if so, whether
such grounds constitute just cause or excuse for the dismissal.

The above principle was reaffirmed in the case of Milan Auto Sdn Bhd v.
Wong Seh Yen [1995] 4 CLJ 449 where Mohamed Azmi FCJ at pp. 454455 COA delivering the grounds of judgment of the court had this to say:
As pointed out by this Court recently in Wong Yuen Hock v Syarikat Hong
Leong Assurance & Another Appeal [1995] 3 CLJ 344, the function of the
Industrial Court in dismissal cases on reference under s. 20 is twofold, first, to
determine whether the misconduct complained of by the employer has been
established, and secondly whether the proven misconduct constitutes just cause
or excuse for the dismissal.

The law relating to absenteeism is well illustrated in CK Lee & Associates

v. Goh Shaw Yuh [2002] 3 ILR 645 where it was held by the court on
p. 645 that:
It was important to touch upon in respect of reciprocal duties of employers to
take reasonable steps themselves to investigate and enquire of the background
facts causing employees absences, as much as it is the duty of the employees
themselves who have to take reasonable steps to inform their employers of
whatever predicament they are facing or giving rise to the emergency situation.

In the same case on p. 651, Lvnock v. Cereal Packaging Ltd (1988) 510,
[1988] ICR 670 described the appropriate responses of an employer faced with
a series of intermittent absence as follows:

The approach of an employer in this situation is, in our view, one to be based
on those three words which we have used earlier in our judgment - sympathy,
understanding and compassion...
i

Industrial Law Reports

2004

494

[2004] 2 ILR

Harvey On Industrial Relation and Employment Law under topic ILL Health
and Absenteeism:
So there is a conflict between the needs of the business, and those of the
employee, and the tribunal must be satisfied that the employer has sought to
resolve the conflict in a manner which a reasonable employer might have adopted.
In the course of doing this, he will have to show that he carried out an
investigation which meant that he was sufficiently informed of the medical
position.... etc.

The Issues
c

The issues before the court are:

1) Was the claimant dismissed by the company
2) What were the reasons given by the company for the claimants dismissal.

3) Had the reasons been proven and if proven does it constitute a

just cause or excuse.
Decision
The company dismissed the claimant after he was found guilty by a Panel of
the Domestic Inquiry. The claimant was found guilty of the second charge
that is:
You have continuously been absent from work from 6.3.1999 to 7.3.1999, 15.3.1999
to 27.3.1999 without prior leave or any reasonable excuse. You have failed to
inform or attempt to inform your employer of your absence.

From the above charge, it is obvious that the only reason for the claimants
dismissal is due to his continuous absence for a period of 13 days. The said
absence was without reasonable excuse and without any attempt to inform
the company. Under the circumstances the company has to prove four main
ingredients in the said charge. They are:
(1) That the claimant was absent for the said period.
(2) The absence was without prior leave of the company.
(3) The absence was without reasonable excuse.
(4) The claimant failed to inform the company of his absence.

The burden is on the company to prove the four ingredients as stated in the
charge. For the first ingredient, it is not in dispute that the claimant was absent
for a certain period. The company admits that for the alleged period of the
absence the company had included the claimants off-days for 4 days. The
show cause letter is also not consistent with the charge. In view of this, the
court finds some irregularities to the first ingredient.

[2004] 2 ILR

Penang Parkroyal Hotel v. Norzaidi Sabri

Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar

495

The second ingredient that the claimants absence was without prior leave.
From the evidence it is true that no approval was obtained by the claimant
prior to his absence. Prior to being absent without leave, the claimant had been
on medical leave for quite sometime, this is admitted by the companys
witnesses. The said absence started on 15 March 1999 but COW1 admitted
that claimants wife called the office on 13 March 1999 and 20 March 1999
to inform of the claimants illness. Other than that no proof of any approval
was obtained by the claimant for his absence at the material time.
The next issue is whether the claimants absence was with or without
reasonable cause or excuse. From the evidence before the court it is patently
clear that the claimants problem with his health started in October 1998. This
is confirmed by COW1 in his evidence when claimant applied for advance
salary for his traditional treatment. The claimant applied for RM1,000 but the
company only approved RM500. In December 1998 the claimant applied for
three months leave but was rejected by the company. The claimant then
appealed and was given leave from 4 January 1999 to 31 January 1999. The
claimant made the appeal because his condition was becoming more serious.
COW1 testified under cross-examination that for the 2nd charge the claimant
had a good excuse and the hotel was aware of the claimants condition since
October 1998. COW1 further testified that for the 2nd part of the second
charge, the claimant had informed the company of his absence through his
wife and sister. COW1 admitted that the claimant met him and Jimmy, the
former Human Resources Manager, and explained to them that the claimants
sickness could not be cured by western medicine and the claimant had to go
for traditional treatment.
COW1 admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the claimants case. It
was Jimmy, the former Human Resources Manager, who did the investigation
on claimants case. He further admitted that most of the information about
the case was told to him by Jimmy or others. However the company did not
call Jimmy to testify during the proceedings although the company is aware
that Jimmy is now working at E & O Hotel.
For the third ingredient the evidence is clear that the claimant had a good
reason or excuse for his absence. The fourth ingredient that the claimant had
failed to inform the company of his absence has also not been proved by the
company. The evidence is clear that the company was fully aware of the
claimants health condition since October 1998. The claimant had personally
informed COW1 and Jimmy that he had to undergo traditional treatment. The
claimants wife and sister called the company to inform that the claimant was
very sick. It is quite normal that the traditional healer could not provide any
medical certificate for the claimant as he is not medically qualified to do so.

496

Industrial Law Reports

2004

[2004] 2 ILR

CLW3 however came to court to testify that he had treated the claimant
during the month of March 1999. CLW3 could not give the exact date but he
could remember it was in March 1999. For the court this is good enough
evidence to support the claimants contention of his sickness. The court cant
expect CLW3 to remember the exact dates he treated the claimant as he is
not a medical doctor where everything is recorded.
At the same time the court must also consider the claimants previous record.
The court is amazed at the number of commendation letters the claimant
received during his tenure with the company. Not only he has no tendency to
be a habitual absentee but was given a certificate for full attendance in 1995.
COW1 admitted the claimants unblemished record of services. The claimant
had never received any show cause letter from the company but only
commendation letters from the company and the hotel guests.
In totality, the court is convinced that the claimant had given his best
performance to the company until he became sick. It was just unfortunate for
the claimant to suffer such sickness in late 1998 and early 1999. The company
was fully aware of the claimants problem and could have taken some action
to get a temporary replacement for the claimant. Despite the claimant giving
his excellent performance to the company, when he fell sick the company had
not bothered to consider his appeal for the three months leave. No one from
the company visited the claimant at his house to see the claimants condition
when his wife or sister called to inform the claimant could not even stand up.
What the company did was to take disciplinary action against the claimant and
to dismiss him from the company.
From the evidence, the Domestic Inquiry was not properly conducted by the
company. There are a lot of irregularities in the manner the Domestic Inquiry
was conducted. As stated by COW1 that the claimant was not allowed to
see, hear and cross-examine witnesses. The claimant was not given full
opportunity to defend himself. However, despite the irregularities of the
Domestic Inquiry, the court is aware of numerous decided cases that the case
is not fatal due to the defect in Domestic Inquiry. The Industrial Court is the
proper forum to adjust on the issue of the claimants dismissal whether it was
done with just cause. Under the circumstances the court is obliged to hear
and evaluate the evidence adduced before the court.
On the Companys submission and the cited case of Langkasuka Resort v.
Mariappan Arumokan [2002] 3 ILR 1048, the court must state that the
present case is totally different from the above case. Each case has to be
decided on its peculiar facts and circumstances. In the instant case the facts
and circumstances bears a burden on this court to view it differently and give
a different decision. The other cases as cited by the companys learned counsel

[2004] 2 ILR

Penang Parkroyal Hotel v. Norzaidi Sabri

Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar

497

could also be viewed differently. The court agrees with the principle enunciated
in the cases but it has to look at the facts and circumstances of each case in
order to adopt the principles stated.
After a perusal of the evidence oral and documentary before the court, the
court is of the view that the company had not proved its case on the balance
of probabilities. The claimant had shown a good reason and excuse for his
absence which the company was all the time aware. The claimant had also
informed the company of his absence through his wife and sister. The court
is convinced that the claimant was really very sick during his absence. The
court has to accept the fact that the traditional healer could not issue medical
certificate but his evidence in court is sufficient to support the claimants
sickness. What the company should have done was to visit the claimant at
his house to give moral support and at the same to be able to see the
claimants condition. Throughout the claimants tenure of eight years with the
company he had given an outstanding performance to his employer. This is
supported by the number of commendation letters the claimant received from
the company and the guests.
In view of the above the court holds that the claimants dismissal is without
just cause and excuse and is against the rule of natural justice. The court is
of the opinion that reinstatement here is not a proper remedy and the court
orders as follows:

1) Backwages from the date of dismissal to the last date of hearing and
subject to a maximum of 24 months ie, RM1,500 x 24 = RM36,000
2) Compensation in lieu of reinstatement of one months salary for every
completed year of service to be calculated to the nearest figure ie,
RM1,500 x 8 = RM12,000 to the total of RM48,000
3) The claimant was jobless for three months after his dismissal. Then he
started selling food at a roadside stall. On 1 January 2000 the claimant
got a job at a hotel as a supervisor with a pay of RM1,300. Bearing in
mind the case of Dr. James Alfred, Sabah v. Koperasi Serbaguna
Sanyo, Sabah and Anor [2001] 3 CLJ 541, the court is of the view that
a deduction of 20% would be equitable to both parties. So RM48,000
minus RM9,600 (20%) = RM38,400
4) The above sum of RM38,400 to be paid by the company to the claimant
through his solicitors M/s Jessy & Associates within 30 days from the
date of receipt of this award.

Unjust dismissal.
i